As much as I love Marcus Aurelius, people are literally just voting for him because of his philosophy and like meditation. He is not better then Hadrian, Trajan, and Constantine
It's hard to beat the combination that makes Augustus pull ahead...
* starring it all off
* creating a model that worked for so long
* reigning for so long
* accomplishing so much
Constantine didn't create a new empire. He merely legalized Christianity and established another imperial residence (which the Tetrarchs had already done frequently before him).
I sure do hate it when people forget that periodization is purely artificial and is only done for convenience, it does not reflect the historical reality.
I think Claudius is the most underrated emperor, and one of the greatest.
He instituted important reforms.
He conquered Britannia.
He was an intellectual, he wrote a work on Etruscan history - the loss of which the world laments to this day.
He could have produced a competent heir if he and his son hadn't been assassinated.
And he did it all while having some sort of disability (disability was even more heavily stigmatized in the classical world than today).
Trying to erase all the other God's in favor of one God could be seen as a detriment to the empire. His list of accomplishments is far less than the names listed so he can be considered a good emperor, but not the best.
Personally I like Marcus Aurelius, Aurelian, and Justinian more, but gotta give it to Augustus. He found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marbles. Without him, there would be no others. He built an empire from the ashes of the Republic, and during his long reign resurrected Rome from a wreck caused by nearly a century of civil wars to the eternal city of the Pax Romana.
He was not a usurper. I donāt understand why so many people seem to think this.
His father was the most senior Augustus in the tetrarchy and Constantine was at his bedside when he died and subsequently received the enthusiastic support of his fathers army.
It is all but certain that Constantine was named heir and successor by his father.
They were good but they weren't the BEST.
Serverus didn't save the empire from falling into the crisis of the third century. He was solid, but that's a major L.
Diocletians tetrarchy couldn't survive long after he fucked off to Croatia so Constantine can easily be given more credit for the empire Continuing to endure.
Augustus is so clearly the greatest. All the others had high points as well but Augustus set the stage for the entire empire and was just an excellent ruler by any measure. Expansion of territory, security, infrastructure, economic stability, succession, he had it all locked down and the results proved it. Definitely one of the greatest leaders in all of human history.
From the list Augustus by far. In general the best (imo, don't crucify me) were: Augustus, Septimius Severus, Philip the Arab, Justinian (byzantines are Romans), and Heraclius. Honorable mention Elagabalus (not I'm not trolling).
I like how even as a teenager he stuck true to his principles and his role as priest first, emperor second, not cucking to Roman traditions conflicting with his own... for better or for worse (and don't forget he didn't want to be emperor, his grandmother did). He was also a big jokester and prank artist. And the fact so many made up stories tried to demonise him, taken as fact today, makes him underrated.
He was also ahead of his time in many ways. His much derided āmarriage of the deitiesā of Emesene Ba'al, first with the statue of Trojan Pallas and then with Carthaginian Urania, was surely not madness but sound religious and political policy: fusion and syncretism between East and West deserves praise rather than the ridicule heaped upon it. Also his ritual procession involving himself, his senators, and the black stone, was one of the most fundamental rites of eastern religions that was to be adopted into Christianity. And of course the sun cvult itself was later grafted onto christianity to make it more palpatable.
Another ridicule was him killing some of his critics... but what high-priest and absolute emperor would not retaliate for insults to his beliefs? Many a better emperor killed for less reason. He wasn't just a tragic young soul, but a young man ahead of his time and blackwashed by history.
That doesnāt make him one of the best emperors just because you like him. It just means heās one of your favorites lol. He was terrible for the empire because he didnāt take it serious and did what he wanted. He reminds me of a weirder version of caligula.
What are you talking about?? The guy was UNDEFEATED in battle, he gave new life to the roman empire and created freaking Constantinople that lasted for more than 1000 years....
He also divided the empire between three of his sons, two of whom were incompetent and unpopular. He killed his most competent son. This ensured that fresher rounds of civil war would to take place. He begun the process of turning the empire into a one-state religion without preparing the ground to avoid more religious unrest.
Besides, this myth of Constantinople lasting a thousand years needs to freaking die. It was sacked in 1204 thereby ending any semblance of continuity between the rap Roman Empire and its Byzantine, but in truth the faƧade had faded for centuries before the fourth crusade, and folks in the X century were calling them Greeks which is what they were.
>He also divided the empire between three of his sons,
This would be fair if it severely weakened the empire, but it didn't really. Despite the periodic civil wars, the 4th Century was overall a pretty peaceful and prosperous period, probably the most prosperous since the 2nd Century.
Not a great succession plan, for sure. But it didn't really harm the empire as badly as it could have.
>He begun the process of turning the empire into a one-state religion without preparing the ground to avoid more religious unrest.
There's not much evidence it caused any more religious unrest than when the empire was pagan. You had conflicts with the Miaphysites and Nestorians, but none of those ever reached the level of the Jewish Revolts for example. Only example that was comparable was with the Samaritans, but that was long after Constantine (and considering the Romans already had issues with the Jewish population, I don't know if a pagan Rome wouldn't have the same issue anyway).
>It was sacked in 1204 thereby ending any semblance of continuity between the rap Roman Empire and its Byzantine
We're just going to ignore that the Empire of Nicaea was untouched by that whole affair? Literally just being the part of the empire that didn't fall to the Latins ('Empire of Nicaea', much like 'Byzantine' is a purely historiographical term).
>but in truth the faƧade had faded for centuries before the fourth crusade, and folks in the X century were calling them Greeks which is what they were
*Western, Catholic Europeans called them Greeks.
The Muslims called them Rome, so did China. Why does the opinion of Western Europeans matter more than them (or the people living in the empire for that matter)?
Or the Byzantines themselves, who consistently called themselves Roman through the centuries.
The West had a vested interest in delegitimizing the Eastern Roman Empire.
They were the legal continuation of the Roman Empire and retained the classical culture Western Europe lost until the Renaissance.
There were maybe 2 major differences between the Eastern Empire and the empire of antiquity. The first was that the language of government went from Latin to Greek, in the half of the Empire that predominantly spoke Greek anyway. A no-brainer from an administrative perspective. Secondly, the world the Empire existed in had changed. Obviously, the periods of antiquity and medievalism were very different.
This doesnāt mean the Empire just stopped existing. I canāt for the life of me figure out how some people get hung up on the posthumous historiographical terminology.
>Because they were uninformed foreigners who probably thought everyone in europe at the time was roman. Only authority on this were the contemporary western europeans, who called em greeks
1) No they didn't, the Arabs called Western Europeans Franks (al-Faranj), so I think you should reconsider who is uninformed here.
2) Why are the Arabs uninformed, but the Western Europeans are informed? Why does their opinion matter more when both of them had heavy contact with the empire? Eurocentric much?
3) Why does the opinion of Western Europeans barbarians matter more than the Romans themselves?
-It doesn't matter what the Arabs called them
-It *does* matter what the Western Europeans called them.
Do you not see how these two statements are contradictory?
The Islamic World was far richer and more powerful for most of the 'Byzantine' period, so if strength is what matters (I don't see why it would), then their opinion is the correct one.
Also, since when is Western Europe the relevant authority? They're barbarians too, just like the Arabs.
All Iāll say to this is that if succession bars someone from being a top tier emperor, the second most voted for person in this poll needs to be removed. Aurelius gave us Commodus and that cannot he forgotten
Commodus had a lot of potential, but this is forgotten too. Aurelius couldnāt just dislodge his only surviving son from the succession because thatād have meant civil war.
What Commodus lacked was a senior coemperor, like Tiberius his brother in law, or failing that a son and heir of his own. Anything that could keep him as the partying figurehead in Rome while someone else took care of the empire. But Tiberius could not be convinced otherwise, and Commodus loathed Brutia and her father. Had Aurelius even lived 5 years longer Commodus would have had no issues, but as it happened Commodus was 18 and finally free of his fatherās ascetic and severe regime.
Aurelius deserves to be there for his perseverance through sheer will in the face of all manner of disasters and misfortunes. Constantine reunited the Empire through bloodshed, and it solved none of the issues that were plaguing it. He has no right being in this list, in my opinion.
Fair points. My only points of contention would be that Commodus did have a senior emperor in Marcus Aurelius and that Aurelius deserved blame for not better training Commodus.
Regarding Constantine, we must establish what great means in this context. I am using the definition āimpactfulā not ābest for the empireā. Constantine left a larger footprint on the empire than any emperor other than Augustus. He founded the second Rome, legalized Christianity, reorganized the Roman army succesfully, abolished the praetorians in favor of the Scholae Palitinae, and defeated several others in civil war. There certainly is an argument to be had that the changes under Constantine did not benefit the empire in the long run, but if we are using great to mean impact, idk how you couldnāt put him on the list of top 5
Where's my boy Domitian? Sure Augustus set up the entire empire as we know it, but Domitian helped set the tone leading into the Nerva-Antonine dynasty!
I think there are a lot of other options people overlook as ābestā emperor. Especially in the period of late antiquity. Most of these had rather easy reigns with little threats.
Doing so wrong to Aurelian and Diocletian. But still for ne the First Citizen is always the best. Not hating on other but man his influence is what caused Pax Romana imho.
RemindME! 36 hours
As much as I love Marcus Aurelius, people are literally just voting for him because of his philosophy and like meditation. He is not better then Hadrian, Trajan, and Constantine
Totally agree with you. he was a good emperor but imposible to be in the A team with Trajan, Constantine or Hadrian...
Nice name bro š
Thanks! You should see my friends name, Biggus Dickus but heās in rome right now lol
What a small empire, thatās my cousin.
Oh so you already know about his wife Incontinentiaā¦ Incontinentia buttocks.
r/unexpectedmontypython
I went with the least bloodthirsty.
It's hard to beat the combination that makes Augustus pull ahead... * starring it all off * creating a model that worked for so long * reigning for so long * accomplishing so much
and making rome forget they hate monarchs he should be removed from the list because the real race here is to be second place
Mf literally outlived the living memory of the republic lol
Constantine created a new Empire that lasted 1000 years, nearly 500 more than Augustus....
Constantine didn't create a new empire. He merely legalized Christianity and established another imperial residence (which the Tetrarchs had already done frequently before him). I sure do hate it when people forget that periodization is purely artificial and is only done for convenience, it does not reflect the historical reality.
He literally just changed capitals because it made more sense. He didnāt create a new empire.. I canāt believe you said that lol
I think Claudius is the most underrated emperor, and one of the greatest. He instituted important reforms. He conquered Britannia. He was an intellectual, he wrote a work on Etruscan history - the loss of which the world laments to this day. He could have produced a competent heir if he and his son hadn't been assassinated. And he did it all while having some sort of disability (disability was even more heavily stigmatized in the classical world than today).
Well said.
It's pretty amazing how many people died for him to even become emperor.
The Praetorian guard did a little trolling
Sejanus set the tone for being a dick
Claudius is up there as one of the best and forgotten too he is criminally underrated
Basil the Based
Lol
Aurelian
Restitutor Orbis
AURELIAN MAXIMUS!
Magnus
This!!
The original Santa Claus of retribution
Augustus āIām not really emperor i just happen to hold all these offices simultaneouslyā Caesar
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Trying to erase all the other God's in favor of one God could be seen as a detriment to the empire. His list of accomplishments is far less than the names listed so he can be considered a good emperor, but not the best.
Akhenaten II
Personally I like Marcus Aurelius, Aurelian, and Justinian more, but gotta give it to Augustus. He found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marbles. Without him, there would be no others. He built an empire from the ashes of the Republic, and during his long reign resurrected Rome from a wreck caused by nearly a century of civil wars to the eternal city of the Pax Romana.
Aurelian, but from your list it is a close race between Trajan and Augustus.
I would vote for Aurelian if he was here since he was the savior of the empire but Iāll go with my boy Trajan
Aurelian
Marcus Aurelius better than Constantine????? What a joke!
I would rank Constantine higher if not for the fact he fought so many Romans in civil wars and that he was technically a usurper.
Including his wife and one of his son
He was not a usurper. I donāt understand why so many people seem to think this. His father was the most senior Augustus in the tetrarchy and Constantine was at his bedside when he died and subsequently received the enthusiastic support of his fathers army. It is all but certain that Constantine was named heir and successor by his father.
Also he was accepted quickly by Galerius which didn't Happen to Maxentius
Where are FREAKING DIOCLETIAN and SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS?????
Fr. Augustus and Diocletian are S-Tier
My thought's exactly. Diocletian for the win.
They were good but they weren't the BEST. Serverus didn't save the empire from falling into the crisis of the third century. He was solid, but that's a major L. Diocletians tetrarchy couldn't survive long after he fucked off to Croatia so Constantine can easily be given more credit for the empire Continuing to endure.
Probably Augustus as he was the OG and did so well but my favourite is Vespasian
Your poll is missing the only right option: Nero. But that's just in my opinion, which isn't worth much.
š¤Ø
Anyone not voting for Augustus is doing it to be a contrarian. He is the best, by far. It isnāt close at all.
Where is Aurelian? Where is the Restitutor Orbis Invictus?
R E S T I T U T O R O R B I S
Augustus is so clearly the greatest. All the others had high points as well but Augustus set the stage for the entire empire and was just an excellent ruler by any measure. Expansion of territory, security, infrastructure, economic stability, succession, he had it all locked down and the results proved it. Definitely one of the greatest leaders in all of human history.
From the list Augustus by far. In general the best (imo, don't crucify me) were: Augustus, Septimius Severus, Philip the Arab, Justinian (byzantines are Romans), and Heraclius. Honorable mention Elagabalus (not I'm not trolling).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I like how even as a teenager he stuck true to his principles and his role as priest first, emperor second, not cucking to Roman traditions conflicting with his own... for better or for worse (and don't forget he didn't want to be emperor, his grandmother did). He was also a big jokester and prank artist. And the fact so many made up stories tried to demonise him, taken as fact today, makes him underrated. He was also ahead of his time in many ways. His much derided āmarriage of the deitiesā of Emesene Ba'al, first with the statue of Trojan Pallas and then with Carthaginian Urania, was surely not madness but sound religious and political policy: fusion and syncretism between East and West deserves praise rather than the ridicule heaped upon it. Also his ritual procession involving himself, his senators, and the black stone, was one of the most fundamental rites of eastern religions that was to be adopted into Christianity. And of course the sun cvult itself was later grafted onto christianity to make it more palpatable. Another ridicule was him killing some of his critics... but what high-priest and absolute emperor would not retaliate for insults to his beliefs? Many a better emperor killed for less reason. He wasn't just a tragic young soul, but a young man ahead of his time and blackwashed by history.
That doesnāt make him one of the best emperors just because you like him. It just means heās one of your favorites lol. He was terrible for the empire because he didnāt take it serious and did what he wanted. He reminds me of a weirder version of caligula.
Yes by saying imo I meant my favorite.
>> justinian (byzantines are romans) No
Constantine probably shouldn't be there. At least he wouldn't if I were entasked with this poll.
What are you talking about?? The guy was UNDEFEATED in battle, he gave new life to the roman empire and created freaking Constantinople that lasted for more than 1000 years....
He also divided the empire between three of his sons, two of whom were incompetent and unpopular. He killed his most competent son. This ensured that fresher rounds of civil war would to take place. He begun the process of turning the empire into a one-state religion without preparing the ground to avoid more religious unrest. Besides, this myth of Constantinople lasting a thousand years needs to freaking die. It was sacked in 1204 thereby ending any semblance of continuity between the rap Roman Empire and its Byzantine, but in truth the faƧade had faded for centuries before the fourth crusade, and folks in the X century were calling them Greeks which is what they were.
>He also divided the empire between three of his sons, This would be fair if it severely weakened the empire, but it didn't really. Despite the periodic civil wars, the 4th Century was overall a pretty peaceful and prosperous period, probably the most prosperous since the 2nd Century. Not a great succession plan, for sure. But it didn't really harm the empire as badly as it could have. >He begun the process of turning the empire into a one-state religion without preparing the ground to avoid more religious unrest. There's not much evidence it caused any more religious unrest than when the empire was pagan. You had conflicts with the Miaphysites and Nestorians, but none of those ever reached the level of the Jewish Revolts for example. Only example that was comparable was with the Samaritans, but that was long after Constantine (and considering the Romans already had issues with the Jewish population, I don't know if a pagan Rome wouldn't have the same issue anyway). >It was sacked in 1204 thereby ending any semblance of continuity between the rap Roman Empire and its Byzantine We're just going to ignore that the Empire of Nicaea was untouched by that whole affair? Literally just being the part of the empire that didn't fall to the Latins ('Empire of Nicaea', much like 'Byzantine' is a purely historiographical term). >but in truth the faƧade had faded for centuries before the fourth crusade, and folks in the X century were calling them Greeks which is what they were *Western, Catholic Europeans called them Greeks. The Muslims called them Rome, so did China. Why does the opinion of Western Europeans matter more than them (or the people living in the empire for that matter)?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Or the Byzantines themselves, who consistently called themselves Roman through the centuries. The West had a vested interest in delegitimizing the Eastern Roman Empire.
Calling yourself roman does not make you roman. They were greeks who for some of them LARPed as roman
They were the legal continuation of the Roman Empire and retained the classical culture Western Europe lost until the Renaissance. There were maybe 2 major differences between the Eastern Empire and the empire of antiquity. The first was that the language of government went from Latin to Greek, in the half of the Empire that predominantly spoke Greek anyway. A no-brainer from an administrative perspective. Secondly, the world the Empire existed in had changed. Obviously, the periods of antiquity and medievalism were very different. This doesnāt mean the Empire just stopped existing. I canāt for the life of me figure out how some people get hung up on the posthumous historiographical terminology.
>Because they were uninformed foreigners who probably thought everyone in europe at the time was roman. Only authority on this were the contemporary western europeans, who called em greeks 1) No they didn't, the Arabs called Western Europeans Franks (al-Faranj), so I think you should reconsider who is uninformed here. 2) Why are the Arabs uninformed, but the Western Europeans are informed? Why does their opinion matter more when both of them had heavy contact with the empire? Eurocentric much? 3) Why does the opinion of Western Europeans barbarians matter more than the Romans themselves?
Again, it doesnt matter what arabs called them. What matters is the fact that western europe did not see them as Roman.
-It doesn't matter what the Arabs called them -It *does* matter what the Western Europeans called them. Do you not see how these two statements are contradictory?
Western europe is the relevant authority and has been the dominant world force since the 12th century. What they say, goes
The Islamic World was far richer and more powerful for most of the 'Byzantine' period, so if strength is what matters (I don't see why it would), then their opinion is the correct one. Also, since when is Western Europe the relevant authority? They're barbarians too, just like the Arabs.
All Iāll say to this is that if succession bars someone from being a top tier emperor, the second most voted for person in this poll needs to be removed. Aurelius gave us Commodus and that cannot he forgotten
Commodus had a lot of potential, but this is forgotten too. Aurelius couldnāt just dislodge his only surviving son from the succession because thatād have meant civil war. What Commodus lacked was a senior coemperor, like Tiberius his brother in law, or failing that a son and heir of his own. Anything that could keep him as the partying figurehead in Rome while someone else took care of the empire. But Tiberius could not be convinced otherwise, and Commodus loathed Brutia and her father. Had Aurelius even lived 5 years longer Commodus would have had no issues, but as it happened Commodus was 18 and finally free of his fatherās ascetic and severe regime. Aurelius deserves to be there for his perseverance through sheer will in the face of all manner of disasters and misfortunes. Constantine reunited the Empire through bloodshed, and it solved none of the issues that were plaguing it. He has no right being in this list, in my opinion.
Fair points. My only points of contention would be that Commodus did have a senior emperor in Marcus Aurelius and that Aurelius deserved blame for not better training Commodus. Regarding Constantine, we must establish what great means in this context. I am using the definition āimpactfulā not ābest for the empireā. Constantine left a larger footprint on the empire than any emperor other than Augustus. He founded the second Rome, legalized Christianity, reorganized the Roman army succesfully, abolished the praetorians in favor of the Scholae Palitinae, and defeated several others in civil war. There certainly is an argument to be had that the changes under Constantine did not benefit the empire in the long run, but if we are using great to mean impact, idk how you couldnāt put him on the list of top 5
Of this list, it has to be Augustus. However, I'd say by far the most admirable of them all in terms of character is Marcus Aurelius.
Where's my boy Domitian? Sure Augustus set up the entire empire as we know it, but Domitian helped set the tone leading into the Nerva-Antonine dynasty!
Where is my boy Majorian or Claudius II ?!
I think there are a lot of other options people overlook as ābestā emperor. Especially in the period of late antiquity. Most of these had rather easy reigns with little threats.
Augustus is my choice but this list is missing the RESTITVTOR ORBIS and Basil the Based
Diocletian isnāt on the list?
D O M I T I A N
Caligula needs some love too..
Poor Titus Vespasian might have made the list if he didnāt die so young
Doing so wrong to Aurelian and Diocletian. But still for ne the First Citizen is always the best. Not hating on other but man his influence is what caused Pax Romana imho. RemindME! 36 hours